Originally posted by Roy
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Problems and Questions in Atheism
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostIt's the same thing in his penal substitution thread. He will assert something, e.g. "penal substitution is deceitful", without providing any supportive argument for it what so ever, and then draw further conclusions that only occasionally follow logically from his previous, unsupported statement. Not to mention that he also engages in the same type of elephant hurling in both threads, which makes it tiring to attempt to correct all of his misunderstandings and errors, presumably so he can proclaim victory because no one can be bothered to answer his objections/arguments.
JM
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostAmazing. JM can't even deduce "atheism is false" from "monotheism is true" without making a complete pig's ear of it.
But the above nicely encapsulates all of JM's arguments in this thread: "Monotheism is true... Therefore atheism is false".
JM
Comment
-
Originally posted by JohnMartin View PostSome questions to clarify atheism.
Does atheism conclude to the existence of 1-7 below?
1 the unmoved mover
2 the uncaused cause
3 the unperfected perfector
4 the unordered orderer
5 the necessary being
6 the universal cause of being
7 the prime being and therefore the supreme being.
If yes, how does atheism conclude to all of 1-7 above as ". . . is not God". For example 1) the unmoved mover is not God, 2) the uncaused cause is not God? etc.
If no, then atheism requires that -
1 there is no unmoved mover, and consequently all motion is explained according to moved movers.
2 there is no uncaused cause, and consequently all causation is explained according to caused causes.
3 there is no unperfected perfector, and consequently all perfection is explained according to perfected perfectors.
4 there is no unordered orderer, and consequently all order is explained according to ordered orderers.
5 there is no necessary being, and consequently all being is explained as contingent being.
6 there is no universal cause of being, and consequently all causation is explained according to caused causes.
7 there is no prime being and therefore there is no supreme being, and consequently all being is explained according to secondary being.
As such, consequent to atheism's conclusions, that all motion, causation, perfection, order, and being is without a prime, how does the atheist explain such? For example, if all causes are caused causes, how is the existence of causation explained?
Atheism either affirms or denies the existence of an infinite being. If affirmed, how does atheism explain the existence of an infinite being without reference or any implication that such a being is God? If denied, how does atheism arrive at the conclusion that an infinite being cannot exist?
If atheism requires there to be no being beyond the universe, how does atheism prove that no being is beyond the universe?
Also following this question, how does atheism refute pantheism, which says the universe is self sustaining, and therefore God?
If atheism permits there to be a being beyond the universe, how does atheism prove that such a is not God?
JM
Comment
-
Originally posted by JohnMartin View PostAtheism opposed theism. Theism concludes to the uncaused cause, which atheism must oppose. I have argued that for atheism to say the uncaused cause exists, but is not God, the reasoning must be false in the opening post.
JM
Comment
-
My emphasis:Originally posted by JohnMartin View PostIn fact my arguments work better if theism is reduced to monotheism, because then we can better gauge the problems within atheism contrasted to the truth of monotheism.
I currently think you are running away from critical evaluation of your statements and the real problems with atheism.
If you really want to identify problems with atheism, start and finish with the assumption that your monotheism is false. Anything else leads to reasoning so circular it's in danger of disappearing up it's own rectum.Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostNot to mention that he also engages in the same type of elephant hurling in both threads, ...
(Elephant hurling was defined as saying e.g. "there's lots of evidence for my position which I'm not going to produce". JM is Gish Galloping - throwing out so much rubbish it can't all be addressed)Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostMy emphasis:If monotheism is true then atheism is false - but this is not a problem with or within atheism, since atheism is the view that monotheism and other religions are not true.
That atheism contradicts your monotheism is not and never will be a problem with atheism.
If you really want to identify problems with atheism, start and finish with the assumption that your monotheism is false. Anything else leads to reasoning so circular it's in danger of disappearing up it's own rectum.
What the heck, why don't you answer those questions about atheism presented on a recent post?
JM
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostIt would be so much easier if he were elephant hurling. Unfortunately he's just hurling.
(Elephant hurling was defined as saying e.g. "there's lots of evidence for my position which I'm not going to produce". JM is Gish Galloping - throwing out so much rubbish it can't all be addressed)
JM
Comment
-
Originally posted by Psychic Missile View PostYou provide for a lot of contingencies for if atheism concludes or excludes different things, but that's not how modern atheism works. Modern atheism is based on the rejection of theist arguments and what scientific evidence indicates. It looks like you are asking for the burden of proof for claims not being made.
If we look at science, we also see atheism promoting arguments for 1) a lack of science evidence for a designer and hence a god, 2) no explanatory value of a god in science, and 3) a reliance upon modern theories such as the big bang, and evolution to explain the universe, apart from a god. All of these approaches are problematic, and simply do not prove the non existence of God. Even if we grant the atheists every theory they have to explain the universe, they still cannot explain away the contingency of the universe and hence the contingency of any act of being within the universe.
In short, there is no proof, and never will be any proof for the non existence of God. Hence atheism as a belief in a negation of a being, must always be only an irrational belief in a negation of a being, and never a conclusion arrived through argument.
JM
Comment
-
Originally posted by Psychic Missile View PostAtheism opposed theism. Theism concludes to the uncaused cause, which atheism must oppose. I have argued that for atheism to say the uncaused cause exists, but is not God, the reasoning must be false in the opening post.
JM
Atheism only must oppose the existence of a god. Your argument is based on speculation as to the workings of reality prior to the Big Bang.
JM
Comment
-
Originally posted by JohnMartin View PostNo. The conclusions of theism are opposed by atheism. Theism concludes to the unmoved mover, uncaused cause, etc, which means atheism concludes to the negation of theism's conclusions. The big bang has nothing to do with these conclusions, for theism's conclusions are arrived at through arguments based upon how things exist and act as observed now.
JM
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThe existence nor the none existence of God can be logically proved, therefore by your reasoning we should all be agnostics, because in reality we do not know God exists or not.
JM
Comment
-
Originally posted by JohnMartin View PostTo demonstrate the principle of sufficient reason is based upon the principle of non contradiction.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Doug Shaver View PostIn order to do that, you must prove that, without any additional premises, the negation of PSR entails a contradiction. You have not done that. What your argument does is assume the PSR and then show that its negation results in a contradiction. That is called begging the question.
To beg the question means the PSR proof would have to assume the PSR is true as a premise within the proof, then prove the PSR as true within the same proof. The proof of the PSR does not do this. The fallacy of begging the question is unrelated to the proof of the PSR, which assumes the PNC as part of the method of Reductio ad absurdum.
JM
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 04-22-2024, 06:28 PM
|
17 responses
104 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
04-23-2024, 01:46 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
70 responses
405 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-26-2024, 05:47 AM | ||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
317 responses
1,411 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Today, 07:19 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 02-04-2024, 05:06 AM
|
228 responses
1,122 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Today, 08:04 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 01-18-2024, 01:35 PM
|
49 responses
370 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
05-15-2024, 02:53 PM
|
Comment